[3.P] We know core is broken, but what breaks it, when, and how?

[Zore]

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic? If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily. Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost. What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

Really? Its metagaming now for a Sorcerer to not be a stereotypical 'Dumb shoots things wif the magic dat goes boom!' now? I mean making things slippery would have vast usefulness for people who aren't blasters. It may help a sorcerous child escape from guards after he steals some bread. It may help a sorcerous kobold slow or stop the intruders into his warren so his tribe can escape or set up traps. You know useful things rather than doing 1d4+1 damage which will often do little but tickle an opponent.

And you know what can be a good story too? When the PCs set up and execute a trap they devise, or work together as a team to take down a tough foe with minimal losses. When I play a heroic game I want my characters to cause a mook to fall so his friends can clean up, not blast it for pitiful damage while their friend has to run away and hide because they couldn't help him. I also fail to see why the Rogue can't still stab it between the plates in an awesome manner picture this scene,

A giant ant rushes towards you, anger clear and evident in its ferocity. Callin up your magical powers you make it slip and send it sprawling before it can reach you or your friends. Your friends then approach and attack it before it gets up, shaken but alright.

And if it had been a giant bee? Use a different spell, Sorcerers do get more than one first level spell and some of them should be intelligent enough to know when to use the more efficient ones.

[Mikal]

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic?

Any of them who know how effective their spells are? So... any one of them who has said spell and has used it or seen it used at any point of their life?

If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily.

So in other words you see how there is an issue in the game, and you make special effort to try and balance it. Thus agreeing that there is an issue with the game. Thanks for agreeing.

Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost.

No it isn't.

What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

False Dichotomy. You add completely extraneous flair to attempt to show that a bad mechanical strategy is somehow better.
In reverse, what makes a better story?

The monstrous ant loses its balance as the words of the wily mage cause a thick patina of glaze to appear under its feet, at which point the heroic arcanist finishes it off with a masterful strike, or one of the characters jumps out of a tree and kills it with a critical hit and sneak attack damage.

[Xyk]

Any of them who know how effective their spells are? So... any one of them who has said spell and has used it or seen it used at any point of their life?

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer hadn't done those, being young.

So in other words you see how there is an issue in the game, and you make special effort to try and balance it. Thus agreeing that there is an issue with the game. Thanks for agreeing.

The DM is there for a reason. His job in combat is to make the encounter challenging and interesting. That's built into the game, eliminating little issues.

No it isn't.

Originally posted by The Player's Handbook v3.5, page 4

The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It’s part
acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and
part dice rolling.

It's written first if you don't count "acting".

False Dichotomy. You add completely extraneous flair to attempt to show that a bad mechanical strategy is somehow better.
In reverse, what makes a better story?

The monstrous ant loses its balance as the words of the wily mage cause a thick patina of glaze to appear under its feet, at which point the heroic arcanist finishes it off with a masterful strike, or one of the characters jumps out of a tree and kills it with a critical hit and sneak attack damage.

Flair was mostly for fun. But mine was better because all the characters are utilized. The sorcerer didn't have to dominate the combat so he didn't.

Really? Its metagaming now for a Sorcerer to not be a stereotypical 'Dumb shoots things wif the magic dat goes boom!' now? I mean making things slippery would have vast usefulness for people who aren't blasters. It may help a sorcerous child escape from guards after he steals some bread. It may help a sorcerous kobold slow or stop the intruders into his warren so his tribe can escape or set up traps. You know useful things rather than doing 1d4+1 damage which will often do little but tickle an opponent.

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer didn't have those experiences.

And you know what can be a good story too? When the PCs set up and execute a trap they devise, or work together as a team to take down a tough foe with minimal losses. When I play a heroic game I want my characters to cause a mook to fall so his friends can clean up, not blast it for pitiful damage while their friend has to run away and hide because they couldn't help him. I also fail to see why the Rogue can't still stab it between the plates in an awesome manner picture this scene,

Oh, I totally agree. I've allowed the players to successfully set up a trap for the BBEG. I mean it needs to be a good plan. To be a good plan, it needs to use more than one character. I'll give an example here too of something that actually happened: The villain is a bard who has a very specific route to the bank every Tuesday. It's always guarded by bribed watchmen. The PCs are a Cleric and a Sorcerer. After learning of his route through some detective work, they decide they need to get by the watch. So the sorcerer makes a commotion, casting flashy spells everywhere near the bard's route, causing the guards to chase him and the bard to change his route to avoid the mess. The cleric is waiting with his big weapon and buffs and beats the snot out of the bard.

Both were used.

A giant ant rushes towards you, anger clear and evident in its ferocity. Callin up your magical powers you make it slip and send it sprawling before it can reach you or your friends. Your friends then approach and attack it before it gets up, shaken but alright.

That's worse because it highlights a main character above the others. Yes, I do realize that one side of the debate says the fact that that can happen means the game is broken. I think it means you're playing it in a way that it wasn't meant to be played.

And if it had been a giant bee? Use a different spell, Sorcerers do get more than one first level spell and some of them should be intelligent enough to know when to use the more efficient ones.

Sorcerers get only two spells. I don't remember what his other one was off the top of my head (I wanna say Charm Person). If it were a wizard, they'd only get to prepare so many spells. I'm not saying that I'd eliminate the caster's usefulness to the point that he'd be overshadowed, but I'm saying I'd tailor combats to give a challenge

I've responded here in bold.

Edit: I've almost forgot: a great way to discourage overshadowing is to reward teamwork and creativity with greater chances of success and XP and increases in the treasure the party would have gotten. It works great for me.

[Mikal]

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer hadn't done those, being young.

So in other words... he's never cast his inborn magic before. This is literally his first time, ever, using magic.

O....kay...

The DM is there for a reason. His job in combat is to make the encounter challenging and interesting. That's built into the game, eliminating little issues.

No, his job is to adjudicate the game, not to tailor encounters to fit a persons weaknesses just for the sake of them being weaknesses. You seem upset with a player who metagames, yet seem fine with a DM doing so. The double standard... is laughable.

It's written first if you don't count "acting".

You said "first and foremost". Storytelling is one equal component. Unless somehow you equate the term "Part X, Part, Y, Part Z, Part A" to mean "First and foremost Y". So yeah. As I said before, no. No it isn't.

Flair was mostly for fun. But mine was better because all the characters are utilized. The sorcerer didn't have to dominate the combat so he didn't.

Your example had a rogue do it all. My example had a sorcerer do it all.Though honestly in my example there's a chance for more than one person to do it since the sorc can cast the spell and the rogue can then attack.

Unless of course "a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates." means everyone is involved... by watching the macho halfling suicide leap onto the ant and kill it singlehandedly.

Either way, you said what was more fun.
For me ending the encounter as easily as possible is more fun, rather then waiting for the party to whittle it down to death, followed by wasting more resources to heal.
Efficiency ftw.

[Xyk]

So in other words... he's never cast his inborn magic before. This is literally his first time, ever, using magic.

O....kay...



No, his job is to adjudicate the game, not to tailor encounters to fit a persons weaknesses just for the sake of them being weaknesses. You seem upset with a player who metagames, yet seem fine with a DM doing so. The double standard... is laughable.



You said "first and foremost". Storytelling is one equal component. Unless somehow you equate the term "Part X, Part, Y, Part Z, Part A" to mean "First and foremost Y". So yeah. As I said before, no. No it isn't.



Your example had a rogue do it all. My example had a sorcerer do it all.Though honestly in my example there's a chance for more than one person to do it since the sorc can cast the spell and the rogue can then attack.

Unless of course "a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates." means everyone is involved... by watching the macho halfling suicide leap onto the ant and kill it singlehandedly.

Either way, you said what was more fun.
For me ending the encounter as easily as possible is more fun, rather then waiting for the party to whittle it down to death, followed by wasting more resources to heal.
Efficiency ftw.

Firstly, chill. It's a game. The sorcerer did not know how to make things slippery and never had a reason to innately know that. Because that doesn't make sense.

Yes, there's a double standard. It's supposed to be there. Page 12 of the DMG at the top of the page: "Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking." Try doing that without metagaming a little yourself.

I said the next part with a indicating that it was a joke.

My example had the rogue strike the killing blow but not do it all. He couldn't have done that if alone. That's like saying the net does all the work in scooby doo traps. Scooby and Shaggy need to lure the monster into them and Freddy and the others need to do other things. But if Freddy just tackled the monster and the others hauled the body out of there, teamwork would not be had.

Efficiency is meh IMO.

[Yuki Akuma]

You know, Sorcerers, in-game, have absolutely no choice in what spells they know. So... a Sorcerer could quite easily never know any direct damage spells, especially as there are far less direct damage spells in the world than utility spells.

[OracleofWuffing]

Fine then, the Sorcerer casts Color Spray. The Ant's basically dead for at least four rounds and the Sorc gets to shoot something with magic that doesn't make it slippery while also effectively winning the combat. Point we're making here is that the Tree was only effective because the Sorcerer let it be effective, whatever role a tree plays in party combat, a Sorcerer can do just as well.

[Jolly]

Some of the "broken" things are there because people remember the mechanical ability, but forget the role playing consequences.

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

The people on this thread will no doubt moan about that being Rule 0/DM fiat/picking on the poor casters/evidence that you are "fixing" the game so it must be broken etc but it's not. RAW says you can do something, not that there will never be consequences for it.

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

[Starbuck_II]

Some of the "broken" things are there because people remember the mechanical ability, but forget the role playing consequences.

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

Than you reply: "Fine than I Call some Balors so they can die for me."

[Lamech]

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

Why is the solar not wearing symbols of friendship? And why doesn't it have a contingency for crap like this? Also why isn't it in an area warded against explanar travel?

And the answer is solars would never risk all the potential for good they have, and come say "hi". ... They can simply wish you into a sphere of annilation. And they do have access to various spells that can see into the future so they can zap you before you even summon any. At the very least its friends can zap you the second you summon it. (And pull the solar you summoned away from the combat.)

Than you reply: "Fine than I Call some Balors so they can die for me."

As a character you probably have an idea about which creatures are weaker/stronger. You probably don't have a great idea about were the line of I-die-instantly-if-I-try-to-gate-this-in is. And you don't get a second try as a character either. Its over the second a solar tosses you into a sphere of annilation.

[Awnetu]

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

Robe Trick, Contingency, Plane Shift, Gate. Doesn't take much.

[Sir Giacomo]

the thing i hate most about this arguments is after a page or two all that happens is people refute the common sense argument (mine ) and come up with a nonsensical objection people poke holes in their argument and the they either ignore this and keep repeated their argument convinced that this time surely this time you will change your mine or they grasp a tiny aspect of your counter argument and focus on it entirely.

The fact that you can use house rules or choose not to use broken options does not make the system not broken and has been said many times by people before me it in fact proves the system is broken because you realize their are things you have to avoid.

This is where I disagree. I think that the rules are already in the core system to balance stuff that is allegedly broken.
- like instructions in the knowledge skills to consult the DM to see what - if at all - a player knows anything from the monster manual.
- like instructions in the leadership feat to consult the DM what kind of companion you get.
People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.
My "method" to balance - i.e., just following the rules - is just so much simpler than ignoring the rules and trying to boost classes or game mechanisms to the perceived broken levels (either via selective non-core stuff or houserules).

Maybe answering to another post will explain better what I mean:

Sir Giacomo

Core is broken.

The reason it is broken is because the class features of different classes are not worth the same. A Fighters feats is not worth the same as the Wizards spells, because spells are better than feats.

I completely agree to you! And why, you may ask?
Simply because of this:
Out of the box, the wizard starts with 1d4 hp vs 1d10 hp of the fighter and can hardly fight (lacking the weapon and armour proficiencies).
So, after this basic makeup of the class is clearly in favour of the fighter, the wizard MUST get better stuff from his class as he rises in levels. Seems just logic to me.
So, yes, spells > fighter bonus feats.

That is how the game was designed. There are any number of spells you can use to illustrate this. Gate is more powerful than a feat. Fly is more powerful than a feat. Dominate Person is more powerful than a feat. Summon / Conjure Anything is more powerful than a feat.

The fact that spells are more powerful than feats is undeniable. Therefore, the classes that get the most powerful class feature (spells) will be more powerful than classes that get a far weaker class feature (feats).

This is where I disagree. The difference in power due to spells > feats is not that big to eventually make a wizard consistently more powerful.
Further up it was brought up - what kind of feats can compete with wish, time stop and gate?
Well...
Wish: Basically the "safe" things to wish (everything else is DM decision) are lower-level spells. So we would need to look at each spell individually.
Time stop: This provides extra time for the wizard (provided he can get the spell off in combat). This is better than any feat, but the sum of all feats at those levels have their effects 24/7 all at once - the fighter does not need extra rounds for buffing as much. And some items (like boots of speed) can be activated as a free action or do not need to be actvitated at all. Yes, I know, the time stop can also be used for indirect attacks (delayed blast fire balls, etc). But will this kind of damage output truly be superior to what the fighter can do at levels 17-20 thanks to his feats?
Gate: You get an extremely powerful companion for 17-20 rounds with VERY limited things that it can do for you (note again "Fighting for you" does not mean the same as "fight to the best of its ability" as outlined in the summoning spells). For a feat (leadership), you get a less powerful companion, but that one 24/7.
EDIT: I also agree to Jolly up there that roleplaying consequences/npc reactions should be factored into the comparison, as part of all the drawbacks of such powerful spells (XP costs for wish/gate, for instance).

Some more thoughts on why feats are not far behind spells in power:
- feats provide powers 24/7, hardly any spells do that (and they are x/day). Also, as such, they have no casting time.
- Then, feats cannot be dispelled or made to disappear as magic can (AMF anyone?), although you can certainly nullify their effects when you knock out that fighter...
- But the most important factor you list yourself with the following...

The only way that other classes can mechanically compete with the most powerful classes is to get and wear magic items that duplicate spells. Wings of Flying. Cloaks of Resistance. Magic Armor & Weapons. The spellcasting classes get the real things as class features - everyone else buys them as magic items.

Again, I come to a different results.
Reasons:
- Feats are hard to duplicate with (core) items.
- Meanwhile, many key spells can be duplicated with items (in particular when you include the core item creation rules).
- And the spellcasting classes usually (druid big exception here) receive hardly anything apart from spellcasting (druid having the weakest lists to balance it).
So, it is in fact THEY who first at lower levels have to buy items to make up for the inherent class weaknesses (like lower hp and protection), NOT the non-casting classes. That is, until their spell buffs and protections last reliably long enough - but at that point another factor speaks in favour of noncasters:
- As I tried once to outline already in my old monk guide, the main thing about magic items for non-caster classes is that they benefit them often disproportionately more than casters, mostly also due to some unique synergies.
For instance, cast polymorph on a wizard for melee (shudder...): congratulations, you just have pushed yourself into melee with 1d4 HD, likely no combat feats and possibly even obstructed your own strength (spellcasting) with it, because the beast you morphed into maybe cannot speak (no vocal spellcasting possible) nor use fine motions (somatic components).
Meanwhile, that same polymorph going to a monk just means: yeah, all class abilities fully synergising with the new form (larger unarmed damage, movement enhancement stacks with base move, WIS bonus to AC is preserved etc.).

Overall result: Balanced classes.

---

Another way to explain it.

Core is broken because the most powerful classes are designed to be the most powerful. If a player plays the class as RAW, it will outshine the non-spellcasting classes. For the sake of balance the game system demands that the most powerful classes be played without maximizing their potential.

When it's necessary for a player to tone down his RAW & Core character class in order to not completely overshadow another RAW & Core character class, the system is broken.

I object to this imbalance being the case for the above reasons.
3.5 Core is not broken, the classes are broadly balanced. And I am finding more and more evidence for this.

- Giacomo

[Eldariel]

This is where I disagree. I think that the rules are already in the core system to balance stuff that is allegedly broken.
- like instructions in the knowledge skills to consult the DM to see what - if at all - a player knows anything from the monster manual.
- like instructions in the leadership feat to consult the DM what kind of companion you get.
People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.
My "method" to balance - i.e., just following the rules - is just so much simpler than ignoring the rules and trying to boost classes or game mechanisms to the perceived broken levels (either via selective non-core stuff or houserules).

I'd just like to mention that nowhere do the rules give you any kinds of guidelines as to what kinds of information/abilities should and should not be given. Stands to reason that most obvious ability is given out first, which in Djinnis' case is Wish. But that doesn't really matter; whether players know about it or not through Knowledge doesn't change the fact that if DM uses them in an encounter (and they're in MM, that should cause no problems whatsoever) and has them do what they usually do (extract price for wishes), players will know.

Basically, characters not knowing X is not a sustainable way to limit characters' abilities since the game is built thusly that the information can be come by in many ways. It's an issue if just getting said information breaks the game. There's something inherently wrong about the mechanics then. Same with the cohort; if the game breaks with any way DM builds the cohort, the game is broken. If the game, in a way it doesn't tell to the DM, limits how the cohort can be built while game balance is still maintained, there's a balance problem. Nowhere in the DMG or the PHB does it say "X, Y or Z is too strong a cohort" or "X, Y or Z is information players shouldn't ever be able to come by" and that's good; such limitations limit the options DM has in terms of running a campaign and would suggest the material is not suitable for using in the most opportune way, or in other words, the material is flawed.

[Sir Giacomo]

I'd just like to mention that nowhere do the rules give you any kinds of guidelines as to what kinds of information/abilities should and should not be given. Stands to reason that most obvious ability is given out first, which in Djinnis' case is Wish. But that doesn't really matter; whether players know about it or not through Knowledge doesn't change the fact that if DM uses them in an encounter (and they're in MM, that should cause no problems whatsoever) and has them do what they usually do (extract price for wishes), players will know.

Basically, characters not knowing X is not a sustainable way to limit characters' abilities since the game is built thusly that the information can be come by in many ways. It's an issue if just getting said information breaks the game. There's something inherently wrong about the mechanics then. Same with the cohort; if the game breaks with any way DM builds the cohort, the game is broken. If the game, in a way it doesn't tell to the DM, limits how the cohort can be built while game balance is still maintained, there's a balance problem. Nowhere in the DMG or the PHB does it say "X, Y or Z is too strong a cohort" or "X, Y or Z is information players shouldn't ever be able to come by" and that's good; such limitations limit the options DM has in terms of running a campaign and would suggest the material is not suitable for using in the most opportune way, or in other words, the material is flawed.

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.
And that he could maximise more powerfully means nothing.
That same DM could as easily max all opponents like crazy and collect TPKs or make everything too easy and the group defeats everyone easily.
Both broken, but broken in a way that no RPG system can prevent - since it always boils down to the DM's skill.

And the infinite wish thing as well as the infinite leadership/broken companion thing simply are not good examples for 3.5 core being broken because they (should) never come up.

- Giacomo

[Chambers]

...


This is where I disagree. The difference in power due to spells > feats is not that big to eventually make a wizard consistently more powerful.
Further up it was brought up - what kind of feats can compete with wish, time stop and gate?

Thanks for addressing my question. But you are missing the point. Please tell me exactly what feat there is in core that is better than the spells a wizard gets.

At 18th level, when a Wizard has 9th level spells and the Fighter gets another bonus feat, please tell me exactly which feat is better than or equal to any of the Wizards 9th level spells.

With those 9th level spells, a Wizard can entomb people in the earth, stop time, alter reality, travel to the astral plane, change shape into powerful creatures, and prevent souls from being resurrected.

What feat can the fighter take at 18th level that can compete with those abilities?

I keep asking the question to force people to admit that there is none.

Leadership is usually the go to answer because through it a fighter can gain the service of a wizard, who can cast spells. Do you see the irony there?

We can go lower levels. What feat gives a character power comparable to Dominate Person, or Evard's Black Tentacles? What feat is on the same power level as Teleport or Polymorph? What feat can compare with Raise Dead?

Furthermore:

Some more thoughts on why feats are not far behind spells in power:
- feats provide powers 24/7, hardly any spells do that (and they are x/day). Also, as such, they have no casting time.
- Then, feats cannot be dispelled or made to disappear as magic can (AMF anyone?), although you can certainly nullify their effects when you knock out that fighter...

Not all feats are constantly active. A character needs to attack in order to use Power Attack. If the Wizard prevents him from attacking, then Power Attack is useless.

[Lamech]

Why is polymorph such a problem? You have something that makes people fight better, and limits casting. Will you cast it on the a) non-caster who has good feats/hp/bab to fight with or b) the caster? I would put it on the fighter, this to me is a perfect example of how things are supposed to work out.

[olentu]

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

So what you are saying is that the game is broken since not accounting for anything else one can get infinite wishes. Well I suppose I should thank you for supporting the cause.


By the by if it is so difficult for anyone to know anything about outsiders one of the best ways to gain this knowledge would be to summon them and ask them what they can do. Let us hope that a genie can not be summoned through any means.

[Eldariel]

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

Because that's the defining feature of Genies? Honestly, a Genie is a Genie because they grant wishes; that's their one common denominator! The most obvious information is obviously what you should get first. And there are other ways of gaining information in character than Knowledge-checks; they just represent what you've known before the adventure.

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary. Same with Divinations, say Contact Other Plane asking "What creature type is commonly capable of granting wishes for other creatures?" Point being, that's not a proper restricting factor since it doesn't stop the PCs in the long term without additional restrictions in place. And nowhere in the rules does it say "the most obvious information should be told last".

The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.
And that he could maximise more powerfully means nothing.
That same DM could as easily max all opponents like crazy and collect TPKs or make everything too easy and the group defeats everyone easily.
Both broken, but broken in a way that no RPG system can prevent - since it always boils down to the DM's skill.

That doesn't change anything; an additional character's worth of power is more powerful than 3 extra HP on level 6. That's pretty much eminently true. Especially blatant if the Cohort is of a type that's well-suited for functioning with the primary character, such as a Cleric, a Bard or in general, someone with abilities that augment another character's abilities.

Indeed, it's pretty much the strongest single feat you can have in D&D as you can define much of the character's abilities though the rest comes down to DM. Again, if the DM isn't out to screw you over, the assistant will be extraordinarily useful and the DM shouldn't be required to screw his players over by game rules to keep the game fair.

[Lamech]

Because that's the defining feature of Genies? Honestly, a Genie is a Genie because they grant wishes; that's their one common denominator! The most obvious information is obviously what you should get first. And there are other ways of gaining information in character than Knowledge-checks; they just represent what you've known before the adventure.

Granting wishes is NOT the defining feature of genies. Of the diferrent flavors of genie 2 can grant full-fledged wishes, and one of those is a very specific flavor of genie that requires specilized knowledge to even know exist. Several other flavors of genie can grant wishes to a lesser degree. Also likely capable of granting wishes according to possible folklore are devils, demons, eldritch horrors from beyond reality, various flavors of abomination, probably several unique being and likely countless creatures that don't exist.

And actual contact with genies is not likely to result in learning about the wish spell since they probably don't want others to know about it. So it is probably one of the later facts of knowledge that someone learns about from knowledge checks. And the countless other problems of trying to enslave creatures that will have no trouble getting mortals to wish for whatever the genie wants it too. And of course not knowing about the risks of the wish spell. (Which the genie spell like ablity isn't actually soo...)

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary. Same with Divinations, say Contact Other Plane asking "What creature type is commonly capable of granting wishes for other creatures?" Point being, that's not a proper restricting factor since it doesn't stop the PCs in the long term without additional restrictions in place. And nowhere in the rules does it say "the most obvious information should be told last".

Aspects of Azmodeous can grant wishes I think... as can countless unique creatures. As can solars, which gating in will only end in your perma-death. Asking creatures for knowledge when said creatures don't like you calling them will likely end badly.

The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.

The only way leadership can be called not broken is if you think it is a feat tax. Its balanced since everyone can use it. But yeah its basically the best feat in the game.

[OracleofWuffing]

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary.

If you really want rocks to fall in your campaign before it even starts? Just write "Before the orcs attacked my village my grandpa had a genie and I saw him wish for a sandwich," in your character biography. Bam, your character knows about genies granting wishes.

[Valameer]

I don't why some of you guys are so hostile to posters like Sir Giacomo, who is essentially trying to defend the integrity of a game we all are fond of, and have probably had many fun times playing.

I waited a long time, even wondering whether I wanted to get involved in this thread, but here it is.

If core is broken, not just imbalanced, but outright broken, then why do you even bother posting about it anymore? Find another game to pick apart in the same way 3.5 has been disassembled.

You know, 6 years ago, people may have thought things were imbalanced, but I doubt the consensus was "This game is broken." Plus, do people actually run RAW-games as opposed to RAI? Really? I could see it for experimental games like the Tippy-verse. But when a player starts chaining wishes in your game, you stop it. There are guidelines in the DMG that tell you to stop it. If you allow it, I'm sorry, but you're actually doing it wrong on purpose.

But you guys can come up with better examples as to why 3.5 is broken than just one or two glaring abuses of the rules, right? Oh - and you all realise that having a DM is part of the rules, and if he seems perturbed by your rules lawyering and disallows a stupid oversight - he is in the right, by RAW, not you?

Would anyone dispute this in an actual game? Does having no starvation rules in RAW break the versimilitude of whole game for you? People who like to beat others over the head with these terrible examples of rules lawyering seem to ignore other rules in the DMG that basically tell the DM how to work out imbalances or broken rules. RAW certainly does not say "This text is not to be altered. Yes, we missed starvation rules on purpose. People in a fantasy scenario like the one we are modelling do NOT die of thrist. Also, see how long it takes your players to realise that whole efreeti-wish-thing. Heheh. You're welcome."

I've also noticed the tendancy for rules-combers to also completely ignore any text they regard as 'flavour' while bowing down to 'crunch' like it was written on a stone tablet. But both are malable. That the game has a few oversights does not make it unplayable, in the way that the truenamer is unplayable. Most of the rules flow and follow a theme, and we can easily notice what is out of place (time stop, gate, gate, gate, gate). I think one official errata would solve a ton of the bad stuff.

Let's get back to non-stupid examples: Like feats vs. spells. This one is perfect. It is imbalanced. Not quite broken, since it only really starts to strain the game past 9th level or so. But definitely it can get in the way of people's enjoyment of the game. I do think that by 20th level, things are ridiculous (potentially game-breakingly so) in core. But hey, level 20 is the end. You're done! I think because of this kind of mentality, the designers really didn't look closely enough at balancing the very high levels. It doesn't say it - but I get the feeling no one was really intended to build 20th level characters for 20th level play. It's like playing 10000 point GURPS characters. There will be imbalance. Not the best design choice, I know. I agree.

But mid-through-high level play is not quite so bad in practice as it is in theory. In theory, spell casters will have any spell they want memorized, just perfect for whatever theoretical scenario you can make up. That makes them pretty unstoppable. They also have unlimited access to new spells, components, xps, and whatever feats they need to enable them for the scenario. In theory, you can contact other plane to learn everything you need to know, and prepare accordingly. In theory, fireballs are always a poor choice compared to other, more applicable spells. In theory, wizards are invulnerable, because they never leave their demi-planes.

In practice, you don't know what's coming. Your DM is working with you to keep it fun for everyone, and your contact other plane probably comes back cryptic or useless, as your DM makes up something on the spot just to suit it. You've probably built up for a few levels, and sacrificed some 'power tomorrow' for 'power today.' You know, a character built for level 20 is a lot different and probably richer than one that advanced slowly from x to 20. Things get all blurry, and your powers are mitigated by occasional poor spell choice or unforseen circumstances. And you most certainly have to leave your demi-plane, as cool a retirement spot as it will eventually be.

Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no. But is the game broken - unplayable? Hardly. In fact - I didn't realize there were so many problems with the game until I came here and heard all the optimizers complaining about how the game doesn't work anymore.

Like a kid who gets a car and pushes it to the limit everyday - they wore it out. Ha.

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

Get a new game to optimize. 3.5 is old, it's loopholes are exposed. It's a dead horse. It's up to you whether to play on the systems weaknesses or not. If you don't op, and if you have a good DM, it still can be playable. It still shudders and weezes at high levels, but you might not even notice.

These people that still enjoy 3.5, and post about how it still can work for them - why do you feel the need to prove you were smarter, and that the game really shouldn't work. You're absolutely right, and I pat you on the back. There are more than a few stupifying loopholes right in the rules, never errata'd. Pointing them out in thread after thread - how does that help? And did your DMs allow it when you tried it? Did you allow it as a DM?

PS: Sir Giacomo, I applaud you for standing bravely against the storm and defending your point of view. I agree with some of what you say, however, the DC for a Knowledge: the Planes check to know what an efreeti can do is 20 (10 + creatures HD {10}) or 25 (+5 for more detailed knowledge) at best. Play it however you want in your games, if you like how it works that way, but I don't think you should argue that you are doing it the RAW way.

...and now, to regret posting...

[Mystic Muse]

Doesn't it seem kind of odd to complain about people saying 3.5 in broken in a thread about When and where it breaks down?

[OracleofWuffing]

Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no. But is the game broken - unplayable?

I think I'll reiterate the point Gametime made earlier: Saying that the game is broken does not mean that it is unplayable. You can have fun playing and discussing a game that is broken. My personal favorite examples of such are Pokemon Red and Blue and Final Fantasy 5. Broken is not a synonym for unplayable.

When someone says "Core is broken" they do not mean that the system cannot be played, or that the system will never produce balanced games, or that you cannot use the system in a fun way. What they mean is "The power disparity between allegedly equal options within the Core rules for Dungeons & Dragons, edition 3.5, makes the probability extremely high that a person choosing options to fit his or her character and to help said character to overcome level-appropriate challenges will eventually choose an option significantly more powerful than anything another character is capable of matching. Often, this leads to one or more players feeling marginalized. At this point, significant effort is necessary to rebalance the game if interplayer balance is something valuable to the gaming group."

[Valameer]

Doesn't it seem kind of odd to complain about people saying 3.5 in broken in a thread about When and where it breaks down?

It's pretty late in the thread, there's been plenty of time to talk about where and when it breaks down. And I did, too.

However, the argument seemed to become a question of if it was broken, almost right out of the gate.

I'll admit: Broken and imbalanced are two different cats to me. My copy of Gothic 3 was broken. I can't get past Vista Point without it crashing in a different way every time. It is unplayable. Morrowind was imbalanced, because there was no challenge past a certain point. The later embodies D&D 3.5 to me.

Do people not make a distinction between these words anymore? Or am I really from such a different part of the interwebs... hm.

Broken implied, to me, that it was only possible to enjoy core with heavy fixes in place, not just regular retipping of balances.

[Chambers]

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

...because this is the internet, and D&D is serious business.

Not really, no. I'm not combing through the books looking for loopholes to exploit. I generally prefer to run and play in games where things are adaptable, precisely because the rules can be restrictive about certain things which would be cool.

Most notably, the rules are restrictive about having someone play a Fighter 20 and having the Fighters abilities be on equal or comparable level to the Wizards abilities. Conan was a bad ass warrior that fought with Wizards a lot and was able to hold his own and win. If I wanted to play a warrior that like in D&D...I would probably play something other than a Fighter, because the abilities that a Fighter get don't actually simulate what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do.

But there are people that think the 20th level Fighter is balanced with the 20th level Wizard. I'm not talking about in terms of flavor or fun - those things are not tied to the rules. I'm talking about game mechanics, and in game mechanics the two are night and day. When someone says that the classes are balanced when it's clear that they are not because of the huge power discrepancy in their class abilities...it's pretty much a big wtf. X is clearly not balanced with Y, because Y has power that can destroy / remake / create the world...while X is good in combat with other X's. ::shrug::

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

[Mystic Muse]

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

This.

I'm thinking about quoting this in my sig. Would you mind me doing so Chambers?

[Valameer]

...because this is the internet, and D&D is serious business.

Of course. And if we do this long enough, we'll solve everything, right?

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

Uhh...

feats vs. spells. This one is perfect. It is imbalanced.

Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no.

Core isn't balanced. I didn't say it was, so...

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means that way will work for everyone.

Fix'd it for you.

[OracleofWuffing]

Do people not make a distinction between these words anymore? Or am I really from such a different part of the interwebs... hm.

In Tabletop RPG terms, the distinction's not very... Distinctive... anymore. My understanding is the terminology came from competitive play games, where such disparities in options "force" the "competitive" "playerbase" to cater to a single specific strategy. I want to say something about Magic the Gathering and a Black Lotus, but I'm afraid that's the only thing I know about Magic the Gathering, I don't actually know how the two work together.

Anyhow, in "competitive game" discussion, unbalanced means that there's more support for A strategies than B, C, D, or E strategies (whereas "broken" means that C strategy is much more favorable than all the other strategies). Since D&D is very strongly influenced on combat, you're kind of locked in to a single strategy as far as mechanic discussions go (Make the thing die), and the difference between the two terms gets lost in translation. Add to the fact that those are just arbitrary definitions tacked on to existing words, and you've got a communications theory to apply to this mess.

Admittedly, D&D isn't specifically a competitive game in the traditional sense, so the usage is kind of clumsy. However, you certainly can be competitive in D&D, and given The Arena and similar topics here, plenty of people have fun in competitive D&D.

[Jolly]

Most (not all, but most) "broken" things are only issues with 1. high level play 2. strictly RAW games with a "generous" ie "Well it doesn't explicitly ban it, so it must be ok" interpretation of many rules 3. players who are either competitive or just selfish and immature.

Now, there are some things (I'm looking at you diplomacy) that are very broken by RAW. However, pointing to a cooperative game (designed explicitly for the DM to change rules to fit with the desired level of play and the party on hand), and saying "It's not balanced if you exploit X loopholes, therefore it's broken broken broken!!!" is pretty silly.

[oxybe]

go back and read my post on the first page. post no.28.

that's why core is borked: options.

fighter types can hit things but unfortunately do little else and rely almost entirely on metagame/player skill to solve problems. the few times they can do other stuff, it's usually due to a magic item... a magic item that was created by a caster to duplicate a caster's ability. the options they do have can be easily duplicated or surpassed via magic, often low level spells like alter self, fly, invisibility, etc....

many these are all low level spells that can emulate or surpass stuff non-casters can do with little effort on the caster's part. at higher levels the scope of these can be staggering.

as for the "yes but casters only get X amount of resources a day", note that the game generally assumes 4-5 encounters a day, so it doesn't matter that the non-casters can fight all day without tiring. his ability to fight is really only relevant for those 4-5 encounters and outside of that... not really.

and inside those 4-5 encounters what else can he do? with no innate self-healing and no innate ability to escape from losing situations barring his own 2 feet the only real resource they have to rely on is their HP and hope they can kill the enemy before he gets killed himself. a caster generally has resources he can turn to if things do go sour ranging from invisibilty to flight to teleportation.

LT;DR IMO & IME that's why core is broken: fighter types don't have many options and the ones they do can can be easily reproduced via magic when necessary.